Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE OF U.P. THRU' EXECUTIVE ENGINEER versus PRESIDING OFFICER & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


State Of U.P. Thru' Executive Engineer v. Presiding Officer & Another - WRIT - C No. 41702 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 3996 (8 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

    COURT NO.24

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.41702 of 2004

State of U.P. through Executive Engineer,

Provincial Division., P.W.D., Badaun..................................Petitioner

Vs.

Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bareilly

and another.....................................................................Respondents.

*****

Hon.Tarun Agarwala, J.

Heard Sri J.K.Khanna, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and Sri Shakti Swarup Nigam for the respondent-workman.  

By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity and legality of the award passed by the Labour Court, Bareilly reinstating the workman with continuity of service and with full back wages. The petitioner states that the Public Works Department is not an "Industry" as contemplated under Section 2(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, no such industrial dispute could be  referred under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. In my view this question has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board vs. A.Rajappa and  others, 1978(36) FLR 266 and therefore, it is no longer open to the petitioner to contend that the Public Works Department is not an Industry as contemplated under the provisions of Section 2(k) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The award of the Labour Court has been passed on the basis of the evidence on record and it was found that the workman had worked for more than 240 days in a calender year and that he was illegally removed without complying with the provisions of Section 6(N) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. Consequently, in my opinion, this being a finding of fact, no interference can be made in a writ jurisdiction and that the Labour Court was justified in reinstating the workman.

However, the Labour Court committed an error in mechanically granting full back wages to the workman without giving a finding as to whether the workman was gainfully employed during the interim period or not. Considering the facts and the circumstances that has been brought on the record and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the award of full back wages is excessive and should be reduced. It has come on record that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court the workman has been reinstated in service. Consequently, the writ petition is partly allowed and award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the petitioner will pay only 50% of the back wages within two months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.

Dated:8.3.2007

AKJ


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.